Argument from Reason (sort of)

Argument from Reason for Souls/Minds

Here is a super quick and dirty attempt to state the argument from reason for the existence of immaterial souls or minds.  I am leaving out all sorts of details that would be needed to make the argument super tight and immune (or more immune) to objections. 

Let’s pretend that the only stuff that exists is material or physical stuff.  So there are molecules and atoms, planets and stars, dogs and cats, etc.  But there are no minds or souls or spirits (I am using those terms synonymously); no angels or demons; no God. What would reasoning or inferring be in such a world?


In such a world, mind and brains are the exact same thing. So any mental event is identical to a brain event. My wanting a Dr. Pepper is identical to some brain event. My believing that McDonalds has the best Dr. Pepper is identical to a different brain event, and so on. Now consider the process of inferring one statement from another. From the claim that some humans are women, I infer that therefore some women are humans. That’s a good inference. From the claim that some humans are men, I infer that no men are humans. That’s a bad inference. But in the world we are considering those inferences are simply brain events followed by or causing other brain events. But it does not make sense to say that brain event B1 caused brain event B2 and that’s valid. Validity is not a property of causation or brain events and in the world we are thinking about that’s all we have that is relevant. So reasoning or inferring well or poorly does not make any sense in a purely material or physical world. But reasoning well or poorly does make sense. So, our world is not purely material or physical.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Predicates in search of nouns

According to standard categorical logic, statements of the form All S are P must have some sort of noun-phrase in the predicate.  Thus ‘All dogs are mammals’ is fine, but ‘All dogs are four-legged’ is not.  Why is this a requirement? Standard categorical logic is based on Aristotelian logic and inherits some of Aristotle’s assumptions. So one reason for the noun-requirement is that given Aristotelian metaphysics predicates without nouns are incomplete. To understand why, we first need to keep in mind that  predicates (parts of language) correspond to  properties (parts of the extra-linguistic—that is, non-linguistic—world).  Predicates without nouns are incomplete because, according to Aristotle,  properties  must inhere in objects in order to exist.  There are no free-floating properties—properties without some subject that they attach to.  Thus, statements like ‘All dogs are four-legged’ while grammatic...
Read more

Relations and Multiple Quantifiers in Predicate Logic

Thus far we have been using only one-place predicates. These are predicates that only require one name (put differently, these are properties that only require one object) to complete them. For example, _____ is red = Rx _____ is heavy = Hx _____ is a wife = Wx ( ∃ x)Rx is true if and only if there is at least one thing in the universe that is red. ( ∃ x)Hx is true iff there is at least one thing in the universe that is heavy, and so on. (x)Rx is true iff everything in the universe is red, and so on.  But, as we all know, there are predicates that are more than one place. In other words, there are predicates that require more than one name to complete them (put differently, there are properties-- better-called relations--that require more than one object). For example ____ is heavier than ____ = Hxy ____ is taller than ____ =  Txy ____ loves ____ = Lxy ____ is between ____, _____ = Bxyz (∃ x) (∃y )Hxy is true iff there is something ...
Read more

Why Validity Matters

In this post, we will briefly consider two famous arguments that are in need of lots of interesting work to make them valid and persuasive. Rather than do that work here, I just want you to see the original arguments and how you are now in a good position to see their defects as stated. I am not saying that they cannot be remedied. But the attempted remedies are trickier than meets the eye. Put differently: once we recognize that the original arguments are not valid, the force of the arguments begins to diminish a bit.  The Logical Problem of Evil Lots and lots of people think that the existence of evil is a real problem for the existence of God. But clearly stating the problem is not as easy as some have thought, and once the problem is clearly stated the ways out of it are more numerous than initially believed. Here's a first stab at the problem: 1st try:  Evil exists. Therefore, God does not exist.  Obviously, that won't do. Something else must be added....
Read more